Hacker News Reader

Comment by Andrew_nenakhov | Hacker News Reader

> Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors

That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest.

If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.

Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.

View on HN

I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?

I don't know how it would play out, but it's worth noting that to overthrow someone stronger than you you don't always need a bigger gun. You need to be more willing to use your gun than they are.

The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war.

In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.

The unarmed civilians were repressed over summer, sure, but the government still largely capitulated in the end.

See insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency.

The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents.

Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight.

Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.

This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) was an interesting example of armed citizen "militia" facing off against armed federal agents who ultimately backed down. It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a significant part of the BLM's decision calculus involved weighing the cost-benefit analysis of the gun-fight that would likely result from them trying to force the issue.

That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...

> the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...

This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc.

We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.

> Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military

If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form.

The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.

Victory in such conflicts is won not by the side that can inflict more damage to the enemy, but by the one that can withstand more suffering. That's why US were unable to defeat Vietnam or USSR was unable to defeat Afghanistan.

Fat lot of good that did when fighting uneducated and untrained rice farmers and goat herders. Morale, knowledge of territory, civilian support and a conviction that you are fighting to defend your land and people will keep the fight going longer than even the most highly trained and funded military can.

The US's inability to win in Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples. Also you just watched tens of thousands of people gather on the Capitol and take it over without any weapons. Imagine if millions of people had arrived and they were armed. How do you imagine a militia of millions armed with weapons would fare against an army that, with all of its advanced weaponry, took years to clamp down on ISIS and still hasn't fully succeeded?

Have you heard of Vietnam or Iraq?

> deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest.

The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem.

> If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.

In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator.

I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.

Portland has been storming government buildings for months. Where do you think these people got the idea from?

Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months.

The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white.

You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.

Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. BLM is responding to the very recent history of murder, oppression, and disenfranchisement by the police and government. It was captured repeatedly on brutal video this very year. And that's not even going back decades to the true horrors of history.

Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.

> Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right.

I didn't. You did.

I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions.

They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.

That last sentence doesn't sound credible. Who's been convicted of this? Who's trials are ongoing?

Blinding and maiming anyone that gets in their way sounds like they've blinded or maimed maybe 30k people in Portland by now?

Look up Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl.

There are no trials. Reinoehl was shot dead by police.

Blinding is commonly attempted with high powered lasers. They aim them at police and anyone filming after they speak code words to tell you to stop filming the crime about to take place.

They're maim anyone that refuses to bow down and say blacklives matter if confronted. It's huge bully tactics.

I'd imagine they got the idea from their anti lockdown friends who were storming legislatires before the George Floyd murder happened

Where did I say I supported people storming gov. buildings in Portland? Anyone destroying public or private property should be arrested. See how easy that is?

The whataboutisms/false equivalences from Trump supporters is annoying. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Hilary's emails, but I digress.

No one said the protest on the mall was a problem until Trump incited them to occupy the Capitol after priming the pump for months. Where are the politicians inciting the Portland protesters to insurrection?

> Where did I say I supported people storming gov. buildings in Portland?

I didn't say you did, I was simply presenting the facts and reasons these people have for their actions I don't condone or agree with them. I understand them, I've followed along on both sides of this and nobody is talking to anyone, the left is calling people racist for even questioning them and cancelling leftist media on the regular for being "alt right" whatever the hell that means.

I'm just not surprised this is the outcome. What else can you expect?

It's not whataboutism, I'm not using my example to say they have the right to do what they did, what I'm pointing out is that you can't have sustained >100 day riots in portland with the government not being allowed to intervene and expect anything fucking less than an amplified repeat.

> Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months.

Do people really believe anything those fake news spewing idiots say?

Lots do. Tim has far too much bias for my tastes but I find it entertaining sometimes.

Andy gno is just a raw twitter feed full of riot porn. I don't think he's "fake news" and I'm glad he exists.

> That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says

Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system.

Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.

Agreed. All dictators say this to their opposition - that they are just out to disrupt "peaceful" society. In China, "being peaced" is an internet slang that means silencing opposition by the government.

This isn't the same. I'd compare it with Putin having lost in the election and trying to prep his base to overturn the votes using lies and propaganda. ( Belgian opinion)

Umm, no. That is not comparable, because censorship is done by the winning side. The comparison you made would be valid if it was Trump who did the censorship, blocking Biden/Antifa/etc and purging them from all major news networks.

He is doing the censorship in areas where he has control, e.g. his own party: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion...

You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight.

The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.

>The problem now is your tech overlords

No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.

This bipartisan support might evaporate overnight if they cut a deal with those currently in power, to keep them in power indefinitely by totally silencing and deplatforming their opposition, in exchange for going about unchecked. It's a win-win for both sides, so why wouldn't it happen. It certainly did happen in Russia, how is US any diffetent? Because you have honest and responsible politicians?

>Because you have honest and responsible politicians?

No it's actually the opposite -- by design, both parties are far too greedy and selfish and disorganized to do that on their own.

I might be tempted to agree with you if I didn't witness firsthand how business unifies with the one ruling party here in Russia.

Perhaps we can talk again about this in 5 years. I sincerely hope you are right, actually, but the realist in me begs to differ.

I'm interested to learn what exactly happened when businesses all fall in line with one ruling party in Russia. I can imagine the big businesses colluding with the government for some short-term gains, but a lot of the free press in the US has nothing to do with big businesses and it is impossible for me to imagine all of them falling in line with the government.

Also I don't see how pandering to the government is always a win-win situation for big businesses in the US. The tech companies have their own interests which do not always align with either political party.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the US Constitution certainly doesn't rely on the lousy assumption that all winning politicians will be honest and all private companies will be "responsible", by some definition of responsible. It's more about leveraging self-interest to preserve a check and balance at all levels so that not a single power runs wild.

With a single party in control of all branches, doesn't your idea of preserving checks and balances go out the window? If the goal were to preserve checks and balances, we wouldn't have seen high level politicians asking people to move to Georgia solely to vote in the Senate race. We also would have taken the time to do a real full audit of every ballot. No, politicians and big corporations like power unchecked and unbalanced.

Trump still has millions of emails of people to "contact" through his campaign.

A tech platform doesn't have political opponents.

And there were no issues with voting ( there were some on a very small scale where most seem to be an attempt for Trump).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com